* Why would conservatives think doing things in the far-left way would be a good idea? (Hint: lots and lots of space between their ears).

* Her comments were indeed racist - and the reaction of the crowd was hardly one of them gasping - but it's not clear whether she was trying to say, "and that would be wrong". Who knows what's on the rest of the video? By not AFAIK releasing the whole video, AB is leaving that to peoples' imaginations, and many aren't going to side with him.

* The Capitol Steps incident is - incredibly obviously - not the only incident in which the partiers have been called racist. The NAACP video does absolutely nothing against those past charges or the multitude of future charges.

* Breitbart doesn't know how to actually resolve these problems, and neither do almost all others. Their only response is to engage in thuggery and logical fallacies, act like the far-left, and on and on. That's TeapartyDumb taken to the GlennReynoldsDumb power, and that's really dumb.

For what you won't hear from others - supporters or opponents - see my tea party coverage.

Fuck these race hustlers and their insipid leftard bullshit Marxist play card. Thank God that Breitbart has the money to expose their charlatans for what they really are. Captain Kick-Ass thinks he's created the post racial utopia? Newsflash to that moron, he's created an even more divisive environment than ever before because of his impertinent lies about race. Hey President Dummy, take your racial ques from Morgan Freeman. At least he has a fucking clue.

In a just journalism world, Breitbart would be working for collegehumor.com. Instead we're to believe racial fopahs only happen once in a while, by both sides, but supposedly shocked to hear them almost weekly. So dumb.

Also weren't we alerted just today on this blog about a Tea Party Leader "stepping down", or castigated from the Tea Party movement over racism charges? On video:

The Tea Party was besmirched with charges of racism that could not be proved with video,

I've interacted with a few government bureaucrats, from the SBA, EPA, IRS, and so on. I've never encountered outright racism...as far as I know.

Until now, I never would have suspected it. Now, I have to wonder.

I have encountered, however, the imperious attitude that this woman has -- a tiny tyrant lording her new-found power over her subjects. That's par for the course among mid-level government employees.

The government employs people that I wouldn't hire to clean my toilets, and puts them in positions where they could shut down my entire operation. It's the first time they've ever had control over anything, and they go power-mad, every single fucking one of them.

"Sherrod, 62, lives in Albany. She was appointed to her position in by Obama in July 2009 to manage more than 40 housing, business and community infrastructure and facility programs, and more than $114 billion in federal loans."

Time for an investigation to see how much of that $114 billion was handed out on racist grounds.

Wow, that's precious. A government bureaucrat witholding assistance from a taxpayer because of his race is what's called a racial fopah in progressive-land. Great to have members of the reality-based community around to school us in these matters.

In a just journalism world, Breitbart would be working for collegehumor.com

Do you realize how this comes across?

It sounds like you believe that media you disagree with should be marginalized and/or silenced. If you don't like what Breitbart reports, fine, whatever. But don't try to assert that he should not be taken seriously as a journalist. Every media outlet has made hay of these sorts of tactics and exposes since the beginning of time.

Breitbart would probably have gotten a Pulitzer if ACORN had been a corporation or a conservative PAC.

<pedantry alert>If hieroglyphics were English instead of Egyptian, you could write faux fas as fox paws to capture the sound then include a determinative sign to indicate the sounds refer to something relating to speech and not to animal parts. That is one of the things that makes it so weird -- there was no unified precisely codified spelling. This concludes this item of pedantry. Please return to your scheduled program. </pedantry alert>

Garage: In a just world, Breitbart would be running the NYT and he'd be on the Sunday morning talk shows regularly.

Do you ever wonder why the non-MSM has had to break these news stories about Dems or liberals:Monica John Edwards cheating on his sick wife and his wife hiding the affair from the public. Al Gore's huge mansion.John Edwards huge mansion.CBS "fake but accurate" story about Bush's nat guard service.Hilary's dodging sniper fire.Van Jones lunacy and racism.This lady's racism.ACORN.Anita Dunn's philosophical embrace of Chariman Mao's record and policies.The lies about the N word by Tea Partiers.

If the shoe were on the other foot, would you be OK with the MSM avoiding stories like these about conservatives?

Shirley Sherrod of Albany was the keynote speaker at an NAACP banquet in March when she admitted to the crowd she didn't do everything she could to help a[n uppity cracker] whom she said was condescending when he came to her for aid.

"What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," said Sherrod, who is black, in a video recorded at the banquet and released Monday by FoxNews.com.

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a[n uppity cracker]save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

I think this could be good for BHO. But, it is certainly good for the country, as long as BHO quickly fixes the problems. I also thought that the McChrystal revelations were good for BHO. It's hard for a high level manager to really know what's happening in the bureaucracy below. These sorts of unfiltered glimpses are priceless.

Bush would have been better off if folks (e.g. media) were more critical of his administration earlier on.

As much as the cons gripe about the so-called lib lamestream media it does sometimes seem like the right wing media folks (incl radio) are better at nitpicking the opposition--assuming that the LSM is in opposition to cons as con media is in opposition to libs.

Of course, it is true that the right wing media folks do spend almost all of their time w/ boilerplate jabber, near total blindness to the failings of their ideology when it's implemented, and cherry picked half truths selected to manipulate the audience, but every now and then they do hit on legitimate issues.

Quayle AJ Lynch Meade: thank you for the triple shot of #TeapartyDumb. My opinions - not really "assertions" - are based on what people have actually done. If Breitbart did things the way I do them, he'd be "home by now".

See, that's #TeapartyDumb: instead of trying to understand (with the help of smarter people) my point and trying to see how they can use my techniques to their advantage, the little tea party brain can only smear.

His investigative "journalists". Websites and i Phones are journalism now? Oy.

This sounds even worse than your previous statement. It indicates that you see professional journalists (as opposed to citizen journalists) as an exalted group who carry out their reporting in a more noble, competent way.

I find that astonishing. You are in a very, very small minority if you think highly of "professional" journalists. They consistently rank as one of the least trusted and respected groups, often lower than politicians. Deservedly so, I might add.

I invite all the readers of this site to visit my topics page. Aren't the smears of me more than a bit ironic considering that I've been effectively opposing those like the person on the video for years, without getting any help from the supposed opponents?

The problem is that I do things in smart ways, and the brainless teaparty types do things in ways that are incredibly, unbelievably dumb.

I invite all the readers of this site to visit my topics page. Aren't the smears of me more than a bit ironic considering that I've been effectively opposing those like the person on the video for years, without getting any help from the supposed opponents?

The problem is that I do things in smart ways, and the brainless teaparty types do things in ways that are incredibly, unbelievably dumb.

PaulWow. That's the keyboardist from Garaj Mahal. Them, not me of course. I just was just watching it and pasted the wrong url. Lucky you though, I recommended them to you a long time ago, it's awesome you finally ran into them as I knew you should in NoCal.

Check this vid of Garaj Mahal . Eric Levy comes in at 6:00 with one of the juiciest solos I've ever heard him play. After a mighty tasty guitar solo by Fareed Haque.

"On ABC's Good Morning America, Andrew Breitbart falsely suggested that the ACORN employees in James O'Keefe's videos "help[ed] set up a prostitution ring in every single office." In fact, several ACORN employees either refused to help O'Keefe -- in one such case, O'Keefe has admitted as much -- or contacted the police following their encounters with him."

Hmmm. Welllllll......

So several ACORN employees had some ethical sense, and one had the backbone to call the cops.

This, my friend, is damning with faint praise. And the damned here is ACORN, not Breitbart.

So Mark I deleted the whole comment. First of all, it was wrong, in the sense that I don't think on reflection and further research that they were hiding anything about the $1 billion additional settlement. They are proud of it.

It's only money--it's not their money. It's not even my money. It's China's money.

I have decided to try not to worry about this stuff any more. I can not do anything about it. I may be dead when the whole system comes crashing down on our heads.

FLS, why do you think Althouse's post is in counterbalance to anything?

The proprietress of this site is under no obligation to conform to your narrative. She points out that video proof of "tea party" racism (and specifically, of specific allegations thereof) is lacking.

A better interpretation is that one narrative (the racism of the tea part(ies)) is lacking in real evidence, while another narrative (the racism of the NAACP, and at least one member of the current Administration) is actually well-documented.

This isn't tit-for-tat. This is a Big Lie v. Institutional Racism. Your preferred narrative should find a unicorn to hug right about now.

In a just journalism world, Breitbart would be working for collegehumor.com. Instead we're to believe racial fopahs only happen once in a while, by both sides, but supposedly shocked to hear them almost weekly. So dumb.

Also weren't we alerted just today on this blog about a Tea Party Leader "stepping down", or castigated from the Tea Party movement over racism charges? On video:

The Tea Party was besmirched with charges of racism that could not be proved with video,

tu quoque is a retort & is used when the original argument is true & is used to turn the opponent's argument against him by showing that the thing in question applies with equal or greater force to him, the one making the charge.

Breitbart is not, repeat non, agreeing that the original argument – Tea Party = racist to the core - is true.

In fact he denies it.

And to the point itself, as noted in Instapundit:

The difference between the tea party and the naacp (sic)is if you are looking for racists at the tea party you look at the fringe and if you are looking for racists at the naacp (sic) you look to the stage.

They remind me why there are people called "band leaders". Great musicians, but basically directionless wanking. Put somebody competent in charge who can say, "O.K., guys, fuck all that - let's go this way".

And Dina Carrol's pretty but she over-sings. Lost me at the first "yea", as in "If you should lose me,..yea". *click*

If you guys are serious heads, when - not if but when - you guys finally see me perform, you're all going to wonder why you didn't help me get back there.

The charge that the Tea Party is racist is a perfect object lesson in liberal misinterpretation of conservatives. It is, of all the charges leveled against the Tea Party movement, the most inflammatory and the most politically damaging. Yet the accusation says more about the accusers than the accused.

Critics of the Tea Party point to a smattering of racist signs at rallies around the country, to the low percentage of minorities involved in the movement, and to a study that purports to show high levels of "racial resentment" among tea party supporters. These arguments are, however, mere justifications for a position already taken. Liberals were inclined to believe Tea Partiers racist even before such "evidence" was available. That is, the belief that Tea Partiers are racist is not an evidence-based belief. It is a belief in search of evidence.

What I propose, then, is the Theory of the Missing Motive. Since the education establishment has failed to convey a thorough and unprejudiced perspective on differing political points of view, even highly educated liberals possess a cartoonish, easily-dismissed image of American conservative thought. Liberals cannot believe that Tea Partiers are actually motivated by the passions and the reasons that Tea Partiers claim motivate them, because liberals in general are alienated from those passions and insufficiently educated in those reasons.

It is essentially a failure of imagination. Liberals cannot imagine themselves into a way of thinking in which conservatives do what they do and believe what they believe for good reasons. And since they cannot believe that conservatives are motivated by rational beliefs and admirable motives, they must appeal to darker, more primitive impulses to explain their behavior. The racist motive presents itself as a natural and convenient explanation.

Liberals, in other words, were always going to believe that a movement dominated by white conservatives is racist.

The difference between the tea party and the naacp (sic)is if you are looking for racists at the tea party you look at the fringe and if you are looking for racists at the naacp (sic) you look to the stage.

Dammed.. I couldn't have said it better myself.. that's exactly right.

The largely white composition of the Tea Party rallies is also given as evidence of the movement's racism. The allegation of racism is explicit when progressive leader Jim Wallis writes, "There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white."

Yet the Gallup poll shows that Tea Party supporters are only 4 percent more white (79 percent against 75 percent non-Hispanic white) than the general adult populace. Seventy-nine percent does not comprise "almost all" in my book, especially when it is not far removed from the average.

Other studies suggest a somewhat higher proportion of whites in the Tea Party movement, but the most compelling explanation for the whiteness of the movement is simply that African-Americans are strongly devoted to Barack Obama. In the same Gallup poll, non-black minorities participate in the Tea Party in the same proportion as they appear in the general populace. The different racial composition of Tea Party supporters and non-supporters is caused not by the predominance of whites -- because Hispanics and Asians are present in a proportional measure -- but by the absence of African-Americans.

Ninety-six percent of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama. African-Americans in general are stalwart Democrats, and are especially strongly inclined toward progressive positions on the economic issues at the heart of the Tea Party movement. In this political context, and the historical context of the first African-American Presidency, it is entirely understandable that few African-Americans would participate in a political movement that strongly condemns the policies of President Obama.

Breitbart is taking out the Lefties by observing the Gospel according to Robert Rogers - Take your enemy's methods and turn them against them.

This is the way to beat the Left because they are such a pack of hypocrites; when they start name-calling, there's usually lots of evidence they're the worst offenders.

1jpb said...

I think this could be good for BHO. But, it is certainly good for the country, as long as BHO quickly fixes the problems. I also thought that the McChrystal revelations were good for BHO. It's hard for a high level manager to really know what's happening in the bureaucracy below. These sorts of unfiltered glimpses are priceless.

The Zero has no problems throwing people under the bus. The issue is that he appoints such people in the first place. McChrystal was his hand-picked man, but the Zero, apparently, didn't know anything about him.

Besides, Messiahs may not always be right, but they are never wrong.

Bush would have been better off if folks (e.g. media) were more critical of his administration earlier on.

The video was damning. More damning was that she felt quite comfortable telling the audience she was a racist government official who had no qualms about shirking her duty and mocking the man who dared to seek out her help, using race alone to guide her decisions.

The audience that murmured approval says a lot of terrible things about the NAACP.

The tribalism now ensconced by decades of Democratic party rule is corrupt, through and through. It can only be stopped by tearing down the whole rotten edifice and starting over.

garage on the "refudiate" thread:"It can't be a typo as she admitted she "coined" a new word, just like Shakespeare. You got to celebrate! LOL" and "If she made an honest typo, she would have just said "oops", like anyone else, admitted it, and moved on. But that wouldn't be Sarah Palin now would it."

Garage on this thread:

"fopahs"

hahahahaha. Garage: if you check "faux pas" in a dictionary, you may wish to note the definition. Hint: even when correctly spelled, the phrase refers to social errors of tact or manners -- not to acts of explicit racial discrimination such as withholding government assistance from a farmer because of the color of his skin.

They have much, if not all of the journalist archives, over at the daily caller. be ready for a steady drip-drip-drip of really damning stories. For an opening act, they got spencer ackerman saying that the best way to deal with the rev. wright issue is to distract everyone by calling a random conservative a racist.

brietbart tweeted last night that he was officially withdrawing the bounty on the journolist, suggesting he knows what the daily caller has and it is either all of it, or enough of it that he doesn't see the need for the reward anymore.

It is going to take decades for this country to undo the damage inflicted on us by these spear-chuckas and Jesse wannabes. What the history books will have trouble sorting out is why we elected these losers and did this to ourselves.

Breitbart also is another dumb conservative who prefers to match the Leftist's racial bombs with his own, rather than address the true issue. That issue is the FACT that this president (putative) has Usurped the Presidency. He is not a Natural Born Citizen (the question is not whether he is a "citizen by birth, or US Citizen, or American citizen. The question is whether he is a Natural Born Citizen, as required by A2S1C4,5).Natural Born Citizens are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and the US ONLY, i.e they are born in ther US of 2 US Citizen parents (or US Citizen mother if not married). This definition has been described in a number of SCOTUS cases, and the term of art has NEVER been described by SCOTUS as anything less than BORN IN THE US OF US CITIZEN PARENTS.Obama has admitted to dual citizenship at birth due to his father's Kenyan citizenship. He owed allegiance to Britain at birth. As such, he is definitely NOT a Natural Born Citizen. He may still be a British subject to this day, but we are not allowed to see his passport.Breitbart, and those of his ilk, are afraid of the "birther" epithet. They say that they would rather concentrate on defeating the Usurper's policies and voting him and his fellow treasonists out of office. They turn a blind eye to the seriousness of this constitutional crisis, and fail to see that the rationale for the requirement (NBC) itself, is the reason that we face a man with no allegiance, who wants to fundamentally change this country, and finds the USC flawed. The question is, have they been threatened to shut up? Are they afraid of civic strife if the Usurper is thrown out of office? He has Obama's Kryptonite in his hands, but won't use it, but The Truth will win out in the end.

Wow, Mick is just determined to turn every thread into a chance to spew.

So if Ann blog about anything he circles back to his silly theories.

So Ann says, “I just saw the movie Inception the other day.”

Mick: The obama administration has been illegitimate since its inception.

Ann: I just heard a theory that Barney the Purple Dinosaur might be secretly gay. Who comes up with this crap?

Mick: Barney is part of a media establishment that ignores the evidence that Obama is not the true president.

Ann: Gosh aren’t these Cherry Blossoms in D.C. beautiful? I think I will run a picture of them and call the post “At the Cherry Blossom Café.”

Mick: Like the Cherry Blossoms in D.C. Obama is a foreign invader.

My best guess, mick, is that you are just a sock puppet for a liberal supporter of obama. You’re here to distract us from the truths of Obama’s suckatude. You think that you can keep us on your stupid issue and maybe get a conservative or two to say something kind of agreeing with you on some points, and thus make them sound foolish.

The hatred and ignorance that Leftism needs to survive have taken deep root in the Government. As the horrible old racist from the USDA blithely demonstrated, race is a favorite weapon of the Left. They use it to beat people down, prop others up and generally keep the populace on the edge of violence. The only people in the West still profiting from the evils of slavery are the Liberals in the United States. I hope there's a special place in hell for all of them.

Yes--JournoList has been outed by Tucker Carlson's dailycaller.com.To paraphrase one of the Journolisters: pick a conservative--any conservative--and call him a racist to distract from the reporting of Reverend Wright's very racist, very anti-American rants.

My best guess, mick, is that you are just a sock puppet for a liberal supporter of obama. You’re here to distract us from the truths of Obama’s suckatude. You think that you can keep us on your stupid issue and maybe get a conservative or two to say something kind of agreeing with you on some points, and thus make them sound foolish.

I am calling shenanigans on you, you twit.

Right, the new weapon of the false conservatives, who refuse to call Obama for what he is, a USURPER, call teh "birther" "mobys". NO ONE here has proven me wrong, including you. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen. WHERE does it say that parentage and allegiance don't matter (SCOTUS or US Statute). WHY can't you produce evidence of your illogical idea of Natural Born Citizenship, while I produce volumes that say Natural Born Citizens are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US ONLY, i.e born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents.

Wow, Mick is just determined to turn every thread into a chance to spew.

That he does. A fellow who, in one fell swoop, has declared that the likes of Gov. Bobby Jindal, Michelle Malkin and Gen. Colin Powell are apparently not natural-born Americans (I lack precise dates on when their parents naturalized) and are therefore ineligible to be President of the United States.

To follow up on A.W.s link we have the daily Caller exposing the libs in the journolist attempting to get the media to kill stories about associations with Obama and Wright and the various stratagems that should be used to do so.

From the article He's Chris Hayes (he of Bloggingheads fame) basically telling people that they should get the media to ignore the story"Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” (I'll note of course that OBama has carried on many of these odious policies, with little commentary from the lefty media. Yet more outrage down the memory hole.Then of course there's this from Chris: "I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,”In other words, don't necessarily defend him, but don't discuss that what we find objectionable about Wright. In other words, don't cover the fact that he may be objectionable, and thus the 20 year association might be relevant.

Then even better is Spencer Ackerman's suggestion:"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

Ha ha ha! Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah that;s pretty much standard protocol when libs describe conservatives or tea partiers (as Jeanine would say, "They are racists straight up! This is about hating a black man in the white house". I love how in the interest of deflecting Spencer says to pick ANY conservative and smear him. Doesn't matter who, Fred Barnes,Karl Rove. Anything to deflect from the story that might damage their liberal candidate.These are journolists right who work in the industry and are supposed to report news correct? The list is called "journolist" right? Yet they are revealinging themselves to be the most odious activists who are attempting to bury stories.

Also, isn't it funny how the left, and people like HDHouse keep suggesting that the tea partiers are racists based on the most loose associations (ie one leader loosely associated to the group or even a self professed leader was found to have said racist things therefore that smears the entire Tea Party movement and Republicans. Meanwhile, a 20 year association with an Amerikkkan hating Preacher, and another association with an unrepentant terrorist who actually bombed capitol buildings are somehow not worhty of commentary. According to the libs associations don't matter, except when for example said association are needed to discredit random republicans to deflect from stories about Obama.

Anytime anything comes out HDHouse and his ilk deflect it by blaming Bush or switching the subject to so called ills of republicans. What a bunch of hypocrites. And the playbook is getting pretty tiresome.

At this point, it doesn't matter if every single point you make is true. First of all, this is a thread about a very specific topic and has zero to do with the birther issue.

Second, it doesn't matter a whip if everything you say is true because you simply don't have enough people in Congress that agree with you in order to do something about it.

Again, even if every shred of evidence you claim is 100% unimpeachable, it doesn't matter and you are, in effect, pissing into the wind.

At the very least, try to stay on topic. If you feel this strongly about your particular windmill, get a blog up, ally yourself with others that feel the way you do and start a movement to do something substantial about it. Trying to derail specifically topical threads does nothing to help your case.

I see LWDC has moved on to a more specific form of insulting up....now it's not just the "Tea party" that is dumb, Tea Party being rather amorphous, now it's Glenn Reynolds....

Good plan LWC, you figure that by insulting Instapundit somehow you'll get noticed and receive an “instalanche?” Sure Instapundit will care…what he gets more hits in 15 minutes than you get in a week, but rest assured he’ll send some of his “love” your way, because he’s frightened/angry at your pathetic insult.

If you dig deeper into the story and the clip you will discover that the racist view she held changes as she continues to work with the man: ""And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."But she did own up and take responsibility, now I just hope the news media will take the responsibility to show the whole clip.

Getting back to the original topic, Breitbart would be lionized as a great muckraking journalist and publisher -- a latter-day Steinbeck -- if he were leftish. But as a conservative, the liberal establishment press can't figure him out.

As the years go by, we are going to see more Breitbarts throwing rotten tomatoes at the press. This is a good thing.

(I hope that some conservative entrepreneur with deep pockets will take CNN off of Time Warner's hands. Fox News needs competition.)

"The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."

Somewhere in the story, then, should have been a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa and then the part where she called the farmer and apologized and explained why she had failed to help, in fact to do her SWORN duty, and that she was going recommend that he discontinue the use of the attorney for fee and that, indeed, her department could handle his problem. You see Voltaire she didn’t make “Mr. White Farmer” whole did she? She left him with the “just good enough” service….

The woman in question resigned, did she not; Not fired under a tidal wave of outside pressure?

Far, far more damning to the NAACP/Tea Party thing isn't what she did or didn't do or how her story ended.

The truly repugnant and hypocritical part of this story is the reaction of the audience as she's telling the most blatantly racist parts of the story, long before she gets to the end and her "awakening".

Joe said... "What I love about Mick is his non-partisan nature, in 2008 NEITHER major candidate could be POTUS...Obama AND McCain were ineligible!"

Neither was, McCain was born in Colon, Panama (and was granted birthright Panamanian citizenship according to their law at the time), and Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain due to Obama Sr's. Kenyan Citizenship. Neither is a Natural Born Citizen. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? I have proved that Natural Born Citizens are Born in the US of US Citizen parents, you and others here (including Althouse) can't produce ONE SCOTUS decision or US Statute that refutes what I say (and many have tried). Why is that?Obama's Usurpation of the presidency is the ONLY issue. Throwing him out of office will undue all the appointments and bills he has signed.

After losing every argument repeatedly with wise people, the left is watching the final card in their house fall on them. Standing naked is only ambition and greed with all values distilled down to simply a need to control.

Being an ex-liberal is like watching as the train you just stepped off careens off the tracks and into the gorge.

Neither was, McCain was born in Colon, Panama (and was granted birthright Panamanian citizenship according to their law at the time), and Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain due to Obama Sr's. Kenyan Citizenship. Neither is a Natural Born Citizen.

Which makes one wonder: If Sen. McCain had won the election, would Mick be going as hot and heavy today over the issue of what constitutes a natural-born American? (No, I don't belong to the JournoList.)

At this point, it doesn't matter if every single point you make is true. First of all, this is a thread about a very specific topic and has zero to do with the birther issue."

The amazing thing is that you don't care, since you think "no one agrees".So you only agree if others agree? That just makes you a sheep. The Constitution is being violated, and Breitbart and people not caring is a travesty. I've given mountains of eveidence proving I am right, and the truth sets me free. I am educating people, and you are just eating grass with the sheep. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?

Bagh20, my argument is that the Left is at the point the Right was in the 1950's and 1960's...The the Right called everything it didn't like, "Comm'inism" and all problems were the worker of "Comm'inists, Hippies, an' Outside Agee-taters." There WERE arguments that could be made, but the Right simply didn't have the mental and spiritual horsepower to make them...

I think the Left is at the same place...all it has remaining in its arsenal is "Racism" and "Racist".

"Which makes one wonder: If Sen. McCain had won the election, would Mick be going as hot and heavy today over the issue of what constitutes a natural-born American? (No, I don't belong to the JournoList.)"

I am a member of neither party or "team". John McCain has wiped his ass with the USC and is certainly no hero. His candidacy is what allowed Obama to run (that's what Res. 511 was all about). I am on the side of the Constitution, and it's violation by the highest officer offends me deeply. The fact that Breitbart ignores it tells me he's a fraud.

Mick: You didn't really answer my question, but that's okay. When Bobby Jindal is raised as a potential GOP candidate in 2012 or 2016, I look forward to your pronouncements on his ineligibility, and the right wing's reaction to those pronouncements.

That's not what I said at all. Suggesting so only to bolster your own point makes you a crank...probably one above debate, which makes you incapable of reasoned argument.

My point was, first, that your comments belong in a different thread on the subject you are talking about.

But to take you at your own argument, not doing anything about it because enough people don't agree doesn't make me anything more than aware of the political realities as they actually exist.

You can spout platitudes all you want and, correct or not, be happy that you're toeing the straight and narrow.

The Constitution is being ripped to shreds on a number of fronts. I happen to care more about different fronts than you do and work diligently on my own toward those fronts.

It's simply a matter of finite resources and political realities. I'll pick the battles I believe have a realistic possibility of being won. You will continue tilting at windmills. That's your choice. I'll make mine to be more effective against outrages I can actually do something about.

pst314 said... "Mick, would you please put a sock in it? The topic at hand is Breitbart's video."

Why does Bretbart ignore the violation of the Constitution by the POTUS and instead prefers to engage in the childish race-bating strategy of the Left. "UH UH!! UHUH UHUH! My dad's stronger than you dad, DID SO, DID NOT, Johnny did it too!"Meanwhile the Usurper sits in office, and all the crying and gnashing of teeth on the right is stopping nothing. He still rams through everything. Meanwhile, If he is thrown out of office for ineligibility, everything he appointed or signed is null and void.

Don't you wonder what it takes to completely destroy this idea the white people are the racists in our society. White people know there are white racists around. We generally avoid them and they are marginalized.

We also know that the racism of other races is much more common and acceptable. We see it, we hear it, we even accept it. When people call us cracker or make fun of white people, we mostly don't care and laugh along.

I think that, in general, the approach that most whites take to racism is the healthiest and should be a model for everyone. Since we generally have mixed ethnicities, we are already beyond a lot of crap. We can both notice race and ignore it as is needed. After decades of being the scapegoat for racism, we are the most sensitive to others.

If you disagree, tell me what group has a better approach. What group is better at intermixing, intermarrying, hiring other races and helping other races.

I just think that the truth needs acknowledged. If we want improvement, we need to be able to point to it and say, that's the direction.

Thought this thread is about Breibart's video I DEMAND we discuss the intolerable invasion of Gray Aliens...they are insidiously taking over our nation and endangering all our lives by bringing into an interstellar conflict that is NONE of our business...

I will talk of NOTHING but the Gray Alien Menavce on these threads, because I determine what is important, not you or Althouse!!

ScottM said, "It's simply a matter of finite resources and political realities. I'll pick the battles I believe have a realistic possibility of being won. You will continue tilting at windmills. That's your choice. I'll make mine to be more effective against outrages I can actually do something about."

Right, all the crying on the right has done NOTHING. the Usurper has still rammed through his agenda. Yet those such as you refuse to even argue the fact or are not enraged by the FACT that the USURPER is violating the Constitution by simply sitting in the chair, much less the policies. No, you are a sheep. It only takes one man committed to reason and truth to form a majority. The truth sets me free, and the truth shall win. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?

bagoh20 said... "Actually, I'd love to talk about POTUS validity, but it's got nothing to do with this post.'

There is no reason for politeness when discussing the violation of the Constitution by the man that swore to protect it. Bretbart is scared of the "birther" epithet, and being called a racist, more than he values adherance to the Constitution. The He said, she said nonsense does nothing to stop the trshing of the Constitution by this Usurper or the treasonous congress that put him there. Don't you all understand that the 2 parties are 2 sides of the same coin? They gain power by separting we the people into teams, or warring factions. They are ALL about gaining power, and as the constitution describes the limits of their power, the destruction of it also.

John may be correct that she will soon have another job. Or he may not be correct in this economy.

I have only read the CNN piece on it. So just let me get this straight. She was referencing a time when she worked not for the USDA but some nonprofit and she admitted, in a story she thought was illustrative of the values of uniting, that she intentionally did not help a white farmer. Correct so far? And so she admitted this. She was basically saying what I did was wrong. No?

Now, twenty years later, she gets fired by a totally different organization for something she did 20 years ago.

Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, this is just obnoxious (that she was fired). And it is obnoxious that the NAACP condemned her for it.

As far as I know, she didn't get fired. She resigned, although I may be wrong. Besides, your "poor woman" is looking squarely down the barrel of

"There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement. "We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously.

Zero tolerance, another wonderful product of a PC world, is what did her in.

Political correctness is tyranny. Which ideological end of the spectrum came up with that poison, I wonder.

Ok, the notion of political correctness and all its implications is beyond me at this moment.

You are correct, she was not fired. She resigned. She said she gave up because she did not have the support of the USDA. Had she not resigned, would she have been fired? Probably. It looks like she took a classy way out, but I'm sure I'll catch some flak for that.

But I don't understand still - would the USDA have had any basis to fire her? She did not discriminate as a USDA employee as far as I know, and not in this incident.

But I don't understand still - would the USDA have had any basis to fire her? She did not discriminate as a USDA employee as far as I know, and not in this incident.

Simple.

Because her USDA boss is an unaccountable bureaucrat who can do whatever hell he wants (thus the need for as few of these as humanly possible).

Second, zero tolerance = zero judgment, so there's no wiggle room. Doesn't matter if she was racist 80 years ago or yesterday. Within that meme, she's a-gone.

Regardless, I'll stand by my earlier point that the story isn't her unemployment. It's the reaction of the crowd to her story LONG before she got to the part where she realized it was wrong. I'm wondering how many of those in attendance felt chagrined at that point. Not many, I'm betting. Denial is a horrible thing.

I did not realize the context (24 years ago) of Sherrod's speech until I read other news reports today.

What really crucified her was the revival meeting response of the audience, which cheered her every time she mentioned that she intentionally screwed over a white farmer.

Her message was lost in this, and I do see after the umpteenth viewing that she meant to say that her racist actions in the past were wrong.

However, the rules of PC are the rules of PC. Racism is a sort of genetic defect, an original sin that cannot be expunged. So, she must fall on her sword.

We are watching the unravelling of the race mongers. Never thought I'd say it, but thank God Obama is president. Took a black man being president for the race mongers and hustlers to be exposed. Of course, this was not Obama's intent.

So then you approve of firing any person, let's say a white man in his 60s, who stands up in Sunday school or talking to his pastor and trying to atone for past sins, for example, states that in his job as a loan officer in a bank in the mid 1970s, he used to routinely not consider loan applications of black people. Let's say this man no longer works at that institution.

But let's say some liberal gadfly has secretly recorded this admission and posted it on the Internet. In your view then, it is ok for his current employer (let's say the Small Business Administration) to fire him.

HT: Poor woman, indeed. And so as the right begins to use the identical techniques of the left we shall see many many more poor women and men who failed to see that the blade has two edges. And the politically correct have got to be politically correct. Every. Single. Second. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're confusing my opinion with those of someone in the PC camp. Please don't do that.

As far as my own score keeping is involved, I'd be inclined to say, "that really sucks you got caught up in all of this". On the other hand, the NAACP started this crap and it's a solid black eye (no pun intended) to them. She's collateral damage.

"I always thought the motivations were Envy, Greed, Pride, and Wrath, but I'm open to entertaining other ideas."

Asserted by fls as describing the Tea Partiers? Please. This perfectly describes the American left, particularly Envy and Greed.

Why is "income inequality" bad, except for envy? Why support policies which make everyone poorer, but reduce the middle class more than the poor, if not for envy? Why support ever greater benefits to government employees when they already vastly exceed their private counterparts, if not for greed?

But against that, Tea Partiers object to their own money being taken and wasted. That fls calls Envy, Greed, Pride, and Wrath?

The left has no sense of proportion and no ability to self analyze. It seems tha the left sat in a classroom taking notes about the names to call their political enemies, but skipped Analysis and Logic 101.

So then you approve of firing any person, let's say a white man in his 60s, who stands up in Sunday school or talking to his pastor and trying to atone for past sins, for example, states that in his job as a loan officer in a bank in the mid 1970s, he used to routinely not consider loan applications of black people. Let's say this man no longer works at that institution.

Bad example.

The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan to un-creditworthy minorities.

Those un-creditworthy minorities have defaulted on their liar mortgages in incredible rates.

You are reviving the "redlining" myth, which was the rationale for selling the mortgage scam.

Mick: If ANY person had more incentive to expose Barack Obama as ineligible to hold the office of President, that individual would be Hillary Clinton. She and her husband have the low cunning and political skill, and the network and access, that if Obama hadn't been a "natural born citizen", they would have proven it and knocked him out of the race. Perhaps it would have been better so.

"What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," Sherrod said in the video recorded March 27 in Douglas in southeast Georgia.

...

But Tuesday morning, Sherrod said what online viewers weren't told in reports posted throughout the day Monday was that the tale she told at the banquet happened 24 years ago -- before she got the USDA job -- when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.

Bullshit. I happened in March. 24 years ago this racist woman would have been 38 years old. She doesn't look any older now than when the video was taken. 24 years ago? Bullshit. The AJC started out the article with the fact that it happened in March.

White Christian farmers are the people who built this country from nothing for the past five hundred years and this uppity loser has the gumption to pass judgement? We need to take this country back now!

Ken Mitchell said... "Mick: If ANY person had more incentive to expose Barack Obama as ineligible to hold the office of President, that individual would be Hillary Clinton. She and her husband have the low cunning and political skill, and the network and access, that if Obama hadn't been a "natural born citizen", they would have proven it and knocked him out of the race. Perhaps it would have been better so.

She didn't. Therefore, she COULDN'T. Therefore, Obama is a citizen."

Yours is the typical straw man argument. Right "Hill and Bill are so smart that they would have sniffed it out." first of all means NOTHING. Second, they all know, and that is why Resolution 511 happened (which HC and Obama sponsored). Hillary probably got a plum assignment (like SOS)in case she lost, but she probably didn't think she would lose. You really think that she and Bill are constitutional desciples? PLEASE!Second, you show your ignorance when you say that Obama is a "Citizen". The question is whether he is a "Natural Born Citizen", which is shown in the Constitution to be 2 separate things by A2S1C5 ("or a citizen..."). You need to study up. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS.

White Christian farmers are the people who built this country from nothing for the past five hundred years and this uppity loser has the gumption to pass judgement? We need to take this country back now!

WHERE does it say that simple birth in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (HINT: nowhere). Natural Born Citizen equals Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents, as defined in dicta of SCOTUS many times. Breitbart is aiding and abetting Obama by not bringing up the real issue of his ineligibility, and falling into the racist accusatory argument, which is a distraction.

I'd like to know what it was the farmer said that she interpeted as trying to be superior. I'm guessing it was something along the lines of "I've always been honest, worked hard all my life, paid my taxes ...etc."

The left embraces racism as policy. They openly state that they vote and promote on that basis. They have entire organizations devoted to advancing the interests of certain races over others. Given this, how is it surprising that when their party is in power that they would practice what they preach?

The Tea Party believes in advancement through merit with no government applied mandates or force. Thus racism would be rare and against doctrine. All of these things are obvious to anyone who looks at things with an open mind.

It is nice to see Breitbart punish the media for their sins but I think by and large those who are in the media are too stupid to learn any lessons from such tactics. The fact they espouse a failed philosophy that tramples individual rights indicates that they are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.

They aren't even capable of independent thought as we see with the journolist and climategate scandals. They have to travel in packs of like minded people and strain out any contrary evidence that might cause them discomfort. This is the only way such weak ideas as they espouse can continue to survive since they cannot stand up to competition.

I'd like to know what it was the farmer said that she interpeted as trying to be superior. I'm guessing it was something along the lines of "I've always been honest, worked hard all my life, paid my taxes ...etc."

You tell yourself this, but no doubt, in an example of hateful extremism that is GENETICALLY inherent within the Blue-Eyed Devils, this farmer came in and rolled his eyes, proclaimed, "What now it's come to this that I have to ask a N*gger B!tch for help? A few years ago you'd have been bringing me coffee."

"Bullshit. I happened in March. 24 years ago this racist woman would have been 38 years old. She doesn't look any older now than when the video was taken. 24 years ago? Bullshit. The AJC started out the article with the fact that it happened in March."

I think you are mistaken about this. In the speech she says that at the time the incident she is talking about happened Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code had just been adopted to apply to family farms. That happened in 1986. The speech happened in March.

The tu quoque fallacy is committed when one tries to reply to a charge made by an opponent by making the same or a similar against him. Carney and Scheer, Fundamentals of Logic (Macmillan 1980)

That is not inconsistent with what I said but less precise.

And your example:

NAACP dude: Tea Party is racist!!!!Breitbart: No, you're racist!!!!!

is not an example of "you're another", but rather an example of "denial" (used when the argument is false) supported here by positive arguments, a/k/a, facts. Even in your restatement Breitbart denies that the Tea party is racist.

Apparently the farmer was not using natural-born plants & this Ag High Official wasn't gonna tell the ol' cracker that he was in violation of Section 666 of The Environmental Natural Born Plant Act, but just let the environmental wackos catch him & have him fined into the poor house.

You forgot that the farmers from the mostly-Scottish areas around Loch Ness had superior, dino fertilizer that resulted in unheard of yields, but that they were marginalized by the so-called serpent-deniers.

I don't suppose it matters that the wife of the white farmer in question says is defending Sherrod? Or that Breitbart's contention that this incident occurred while she worked for the Obama Administration when it was 24 years ago?

Of course not. Breitbart is just always right, regardless of the fact that he's been caught red-handed lying and selectively editing before (see: phony ACORN human trafficking story).

You're all being duped by your own "fair and balanced" network and you don't even know it. Nor do you care.

"So Jim, you're saying she was lying about not helping the white farmer?"

If I can chime in, to the contrary I think she was being quite truthful about it and owning it. What is inaccurate is the impression that this conduct occurred in the recent past, while she was working for USDA under the Obama Administration, instead of 20-some years ago while working for a state agency. The conduct was inexcusable, and she seems to, at least professes to, recognize that now.